"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:nfscq3le187f4k12e5b20nv0f12p1r05mk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ray <xxxrayted@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> used a stick in the sand to babble
>>> They quit talking about Iraq because there isn't nearly as much
>>> violence to talk about since the surge started.
>>
>>
>>Well yes, this is the point I'm making. Why would the media take the
>>time and effort to re****t something positive about Iraq.
>
> My point may have been to subtle for you. They ARE re****ting positive
> news about Iraq, but the public, seeing that positive news, has now
> moved onto other things which the media must re****t on or risk damage
> to their profit margins.
>
> Swill
I don't think it as much profit as it is credibility, after being accused
of
not re****ting on things one way or the other. They are returning to
re****ting it as it is and letting the viewer decided how it effects them,
if
it does. Instead of bowing to Congress or the Senate or the President, bam
here it is if someone "comprehends it differently" then that's their own
misguidance. You say Tomato, I say Tomaato. IF the troops started today it
would take at least eight to ten years for the last troop to step out, but
what every body is forgetting is that there are bases being built in Iraq
for permanent occupation by US forces, so troops will be stationed there
like South Korea has US troops in country. It'll be a stand off, "no
winners" like Korea.
MB
|
